Overreaction to N.J. school board criminal background checks is absurd

Mark Dye/For the Star Ledger Rev. Reginald Jackson and Monsignor William Linder are among the “scofflaws” the state now wants to kick off school boards because they haven’t been fingerprinted for background checks.

Let’s see if we have this straight: the Rev. Reginald Jackson and Monsignor William Linder are among the “scofflaws” the state now wants to kick off school boards because they haven’t been fingerprinted for background checks.

Are they kidding? This overreaction is absurd. Recall that the people who serve on school boards are civically engaged residents who offer up their time and services to the community, free of charge. Not some crew of criminals, recently sprung from prison, in search of a political crash pad.

When the new background check was signed into law by Gov. Chris Christie in May, it was supposed to take effect immediately. Yet, unbeknownst to legislators, the state needed federal clearance to complete the process, so it couldn’t be implemented right away. Board members were told to wait, said Frank Belluscio of the New Jersey School Boards Association, which caused initial confusion. “The sense of urgency was lost,” he said.

Since then, the state says it did everything it could to warn board members of the impending deadline, sending out three letters between July and December to their district offices. Those who did not act in time — a “wanted” list of 186 — have now been declared ineligible.

But wait: Some may have already registered for the finger-printing, yet could not complete it because of a backlog. Others may have had problems registering online. Besides, as The Star-Ledger found, the state’s ineligibility list itself contained errors — people who no longer serve on the boards, or never have.

That’s fair, because the law itself is clearly flawed. We don’t require background checks for other elected officials. Yet for board members with even a minor conviction, it mandates automatic disqualification without any sort of appeal process or discretion. Cerf should be allowed to consider the nature of the crime, how long ago it took place and the person’s record of community service.

Otherwise, a zero-tolerance policy for school officials will get us exactly what it did for students: rigid rules, with often ridiculous consequences.